Yesterday, the best hope for any real progress in protecting Americans from gun violence was shot down.
I get it, though. There's a fear that the government lies. Well, the NRA has demonstrably lied on a huge scale in order to push its pro-guns for everyone, everywhere agenda. The NRA is financed by gun manufacturers. Therefore, the NRA does the bidding of the gun manufacturers and represents their desires above those of actual NRA members. Of course gun manufacturers want as few restrictions as possible on gun sales. Gun sales are how they make their money. It's not difficult to connect the dots. In fact, it's a much easier connection than those reached by conspiracy theorists. Gun manufacturers have a vested interest in ginning up fear among the populace by distorting the facts, and telling people that "the government is going to take your guns away", which translates into "Better get them while their hot–you never know when they'll be gone for good!" This also leads to the idea that people need as much protection as possible against a "tyrannical" government comprised of SWAT teams and Special Forces soldiers who will kick down their doors in an effort to forcefully, physically "steal" their Cobstitutionally-protected firearms. Scary image, right? That's why fear mongering is effective. And, in this case, it's particularly potent because it preys on people who are already especially vulnerable to this type of delusional mindset. Never mind the fact that several Supreme Court cases as well as the Constitution itself is on the side of gun owners. These people who possess deadly weapons are defenseless against the Leviathan, didn't you know? In their minds, their guns are the only things standing between them and such ridiculous and dangerous notions as state-run concentration camp style FEMA camps used to imprison citizens. What do you bet these people don't even know that there are countries like Russia and North Korea who, right now, send political prisoners to ACTUAL work/slave camps?
Anyway, efforts were made to try to convince these people that their worst fears would never be realized. The government actually catered to THEM.
While the compromise bill was not as far-reaching as many would have liked, it was hailed as a historic and positive step. Its bipartisan nature was touted. It was drafted by Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two conservative senators who represent areas densely populated by gun owners. It was often mentioned how credibility was gained by the fact that both senators had "A" ratings from the NRA.
In a myriad of polls, at least 90% of the American people supported expanded background checks. Some polls said 91%. More than 80% of Americans supported universal background checks.
Even NRA head and soulless shell of a person Wayne LaPierre called for universal background checks in a widely-circulated video showing him testifying before Congress in 1999 on behalf of the NRA and its powerful lobbyists.
It was thought that in the wake of the Sandy Hook School massacre and the accumulated horror of all the mass shootings and smaller scale, but ubiquitous, gun violence, that it was finally possible to attempt to make the country just a little safer. As both Biden and Obama have said, if the life of one child, one person, or a hundred, or a thousand, is saved by keeping guns out of the hands of more convicted felons, domestic abusers, and those with severe mental illnesses, don't we have an obligation to try?
As the families and friends of those who died and suffered grievous injuries in shootings looked on from the Senate gallery (at the very senators they had summoned the strength to share their stories with in an effort to prevent others from going through the same unimaginable pain in the future), the Senate killed the bill. The vote was 54-46, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joining the 46 and voting no once it became clear the bill wouldn't pass in order to be able to bring it up for another vote in the future. Two of the women directly affected by gun violence shouted "shame on you" to those senators who voted no, from the Senate gallery. Former Representative Gabby Giffords, herself a famous example of gun violence, echoed this statement in an op-ed for "The New York Times" published today. As she explained how she has been robbed of the ability to speak easily since being shot in the head in Tucson in January 2011, she expressed being "furious" at the outcome of the vote. She is not only a former Congresswoman, a very visible victim of gun violence, and still, a gun owner, but she also co-founded Americans for Responsible Solutions, a PAC that aims to counter the incredible lobbying power of the NRA, with her former astronaut husband, Mark Kelly.
President Obama was very angry at a press conference he gave less than an hour after the Senate vote. He said that while "90 percent of Democrats voted for the bill, 90 percent of Republicans voted against it". Obama explicitly called the NRA out on its lies to people.
The NRA erroneously claimed that a universal gun registry was to be created, and that it would be used to punish lawful gun owners. The NRA LIED ON PURPOSE–and, as Obama said, it worked. Unfortunately, enough of a "vocal minority" called their senators, and sufficiently scared them into voting against the bill. Members of Congress are so worried about being primaried in their next elections that they don't represent the majority of people. As Obama resignedly asked, who are they representing?
Senior Senator from Connecticut Richard Blumenthal called yesterday the "saddest day of [his] public life". He has been a tireless advocate for gun control legislation since the Sandy Hook massacre rocked his state in December. Yesterday was especially disappointing for millions of Americans, myself included. There are eight more gun control-related bills that are going to the Senate floor in the coming days. They are not expected to pass. As one resolute father of a six-year-old boy who was brutally murdered by gun violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School said, this is just the beginning. They knew it would be a long road, and they (all those related to victims of gun violence) aren't going anywhere because they have no choice.
It's difficult to be optimistic, but there are no other options but to give up. Progress often takes time. I'm hoping at least some of these senators are voted out next election cycle, and replaced by more progressive counterparts. Let them feel the power of votes firsthand.
I'm writing this with the perspective of having seen both the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate. I'd like to comment on the veracity of both.
I hope that anyone who reads this post will watch tomorrow night's debate through a pretty straightforward lens. My main criterion is very simple: Support the candidate who tells you the truth. I know, it seems like a tall order. It shouldn't, though. If both major party candidates lie tomorrow night, both should be admonished. While the candidates—and every politician—is ultimately responsible for what he or she says, the environment should not exist in which certain behavior (e.g., lying) is not only expected, but encouraged.
For some time, there has been a not so tacit acceptance that politicians lie. For at least as long as there have been politicians, the cynical belief that you can't trust someone who seeks to attain and maintain power has been stubbornly cemented into the collective consciousness. To an extent, this ethic may be true. It is a logical extension of human nature, and has certainly been borne out by empirical observation.
The idea that a politician can lie to get ahead, that a person can—and should—lie to the very people he or she hopes to serve is not ok.
It is not the world of 1984. There is no (official) Ministry of Truth, passing off falsehoods as fact. Politicians and members of the media are responsible for disseminating true statements, not self-serving lies.
On October 4, Dana Milbank, widely read columnist for The Washington Post, said something shocking on Martin Bashir's show on MSNBC. Bashir asked Milbank to explain an article he had written, defending Romney's debate performance. Milbank ended up admitting that, yes, Romney did lie on countless occasions during the debate. He had no reason to believe that these lies were not deliberate deceptions intended to win the debate. Essentially, facts be damned. When pressed further by Bashir on the major ethical issues of running for the highest office in the country, and how such action certainly undercuts legitimacy, Milbank said that Obama "let him lie", and that that's how you play the game. Milbank said that after he watched over 20 Republican primary debates, he didn't see how "you would expect anything different". Milbank maintained that lying is fine and, in Romney's case was an advantageous move. He thinks Romney owes the country nothing, and basically said that the ball is in Obama's court to disprove Romney's lies. Both Bashir and Milbank agreed on Romney's "litany of lies". Milbank saw no problem with these lies. Not only was he complicit in this disgusting system; he praised Romney in both a widely circulated newspaper editorial and on national television.
People should be very upset. The onus, however, should not be on every person to fact check every statement. Everyone should be informed, and people like me do fact check political statements, but no one should have to expect that lies are the default position. What are journalists for? Where is the media? Oh, right, certain members—the Dana Milbanks of the media—are not doing their jobs. I don't care if this was an opinion piece. Dana Milbank should be ashamed for encouraging such behavior, and then for doubling down on his encouragement. Like Mitt Romney, "no apologies", it seems.
Paul Ryan also lied in his debate with Joe Biden. Ryan has a habit of disavowing the truth. The moniker "Lyin' Ryan" didn't come from nowhere.
Yes, I've been picking on Romney and Ryan. I'm putting them under the microscope because they represent very vivid and pretty indisputable examples. This is not a purely partisan issue, and I don't seek to be discredited by acting as if it is. Lying, no matter what person, party, or persuasion, is not acceptable. It is not how you win debates, and it shouldn't be how you win votes.
Aren't the candidates supposed to love and laud "the American people"? To politicians everywhere: what a tremendous slap in the face to the citizens you expect to vote for you. You're supposed to be a public servant.
To be completely clear about why such lying is problematic at best and morally bankrupt at worst, I will list five reasons why the electorate should not passively accept those who seek to lead us deceiving us.
1. An "anything goes" downward spiral: The first excuse given by anyone seeking to apologize for a politician's lies are "but the other side does it!", as if this excuse somehow absolves their candidate of responsibility for wrongdoing. If evasive tactics haven't worked (further compounding the lie into an often unmanageable, tangled web of more and more lies), and the candidate is stuck with "blueberry pie on [his or her] face", as Al Sharpton likes to say, then the act of lying is used as a defense mechanism. We, the voters, are reminded that our candidate has to "fight back" against the barrage of lies being told about him or her by his or her opponent. We are to believe that every race is an arms race and that each campaign degenerates into a prisoner's dilemma. Of course, it would be nice if the candidates each just highlighted their own records and didn't have to lie, but unfortunately, once the "other side" does it, "our side" has no choice. We are made to believe that the only thing that can neutralize lying is more lying, whether or not the "other side" even lied in the first place. There is so much deliberate fabrication and spin, especially by outside groups (yes, I'm calling you out, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove), that it seems chaos is created intentionally to justify further lying. At least in the Cold War, the idea of mutually assured destruction prevented each side from nuking the other because everyone realized it was in their best interest not to bring us all down. Politicians and their enablers would do well to learn a lesson from history.
2. The No Responsibility Ethic: If a politician is encouraged to lie (and takes the bait), in a debate, let's say, then we can be assured that person has little in the way of scruples. This person is unlikely to take responsibility for lying, or for any of the consequences of his or her misinformation or disinformation. The candidate has a reputation to uphold! How dare you question his or her character? Do you really want someone in office, representing you, who does not take responsibility for his or her actions? The rest of the country is constantly reminded of the fact that we are supposed to take "responsibility for our lives" (here's looking at you, Mitt Romney; yet, it's more than alright for Romney to lie?)—I sense a disconnect here.
3. Unethical Conduct and the Trust Factor: This is very clear cut. Lying is unethical. Most people would agree on this point. Ask any focus group or perform any poll, and I can almost guarantee you that when presented with the idea of outright lying, this practice would be nearly universally panned by almost any panel. This idea cuts at the heart of our instinctive drive to trust others who have proven they are trustworthy. If someone will lie to you, how can you trust him or her? And should you trust him or her? Pick any point in human history. One person's lie could have led to an early human version of you being eaten by a wild animal, or a seventeenth century version of you being burned at the stake. Trust is crucial to survival. Trust is earned and can be broken. Betrayal is devastating, even if it doesn't result in one's immediate demise. That is why we put such a premium on it. If someone betrays you, especially repeatedly, how can you trust this person?
4. Abuse of Power and a Sense of Elite Entitlement: We hear a lot about the divisiveness of politics, about how it's wrong to separate people. From accusations of "class warfare" to charges of exclusion, we like to pretend America is one big, happy family, and that "united we stand; divided we fall" is an ethic to live by—until it's not. This is only a categorical imperative for the lowly, the lesser. If politicians are allowed to lie, it sends the message that the rest of society is somehow not entitled to the same privilege, that an exception is made for the politician. Somehow, the view has been turned upside down. Instead of those who tell the truth being placed above those who lie, lying engenders a dividing line. Those who can lie with relative impunity live in the VIP room of society. They end up thinking they are allowed to act in a way contrary to the behavior expected of the general population, and how is this normally abhorrent behavior justified? Well, they must be special, or their circumstances are special. Either way, they are patricians to the rest of the American plebeians. They—the politicians—are the elite who must pay lip service to everyone else. This leads to the cordoning off of certain sections of society, like politicians, who are allowed to act in a way normally viewed as unbecoming for the rest of us. It leads to politicians thinking they are special, therefore, further separating themselves from being "one of the people". One cannot expect to be accurately represented by such a person.
5. It's Disingenuous: What's real?: This is an important point: I'm not saying all politicians lie, and I'm not saying they do it all the time. If it happens even once in a presidential debate, however, that is one time too many. It's unbelievable to me that there actually exists an adviser to the Romney campaign who claims that the campaign is not beholden to fact checkers. This statement is viewed by some as heroic. Really? Facts don't matter? What else do we have? Suddenly, a campaign can create its own reality. Well, not only is that unfair, and the other candidates do not even stand a chance if fictional versions of themselves are presented to the public, but it's pretty irrational and scary, not to mention incredibly arrogant. Facts do matter. Unbiased data is essential. Voters have the right to make informed decisions based on real evidence. No one should be allowed to cheat.
When you watch the debate tomorrow night, judge the candidate's integrity. This is important. You deserve to be told the truth, and not to be manipulated. Demand a basic level of decency and honesty from politicians. Your vote matters. They are there to serve you, and lying about their records or their opponents in an effort to get ahead or pull one over on voters should be a disqualifier. Think about it: it would be in almost any other position or area of life. Those who make the climate comfortable for liars are equally responsible. Honesty and integrity are basic tenets. Telling the truth is the least people can do.
In the days following last week's Democratic National Convention, there's been a lot of buzz about the "significant" bounce President Obama received nationally. A litany of polls point to the fact that both the president and Democrats alike have higher favorability ratings and are seen as more trustworthy and relatable on key issues to voters—as compared to Mitt Romney and Republicans. Pollsters and pundits like to attribute this bounce to the "nearly flawless" Convention the Democrats put on. For all the talk of the "enthusiasm gap" among Democrats leading up to the Convention, it seemed the Republicans–with their bland speakers, non-detail specific plans, and most searing, visually, the lackluster crowd—comprised the party with the "enthusiasm gap". The contrasts between the rousing call to action speeches, actual facts (which former present and all-around charmer Bill Clinton called "arithmetic"), and the diverse and engaged crowd, as compared to the Republican National Convention, couldn't be starker.
Except that the Democratic National Convention wasn't nearly flawless. Venue changes and speech scheduling issues aside, the "God and Jerusalem" issue of last Wednesday night is one that I would call a major flaw. Of course Democrats want to brush over it. One need only watch an obviously annoyed Nancy Pelosi repeatedly explain "it's over" when asked about the event to know Democrats don't want to talk about it. I bring this up not to taint the Democrats or the Convention. I want nothing more than for Barack Obama to beat Mitt Romney on November 6th. This event should not be swept under the rug, though. I want to feel proud of my party and I don't want to think that it stands for fundamental unfairness and oligarchy, which is the conclusion I've drawn from the votes I saw and the (sham) presentation at the Convention regarding proposed changes to the platform. Besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the idea of including mentions of God in an American political party platform and I think the idea of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel is an abhorrent display of pandering at best and possible racism at worst, the fact that DNC organizers completely ignored the will of the people is irrefutably shameful and unacceptable. We should all be up in arms about the fact that this can happen in the United States—and on TV, no less!
The original Democratic Party platform contained no mention of the word "God", and it did not include the idea that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. There were some murmurs about the alleged God snubbing part. I was very excited about this part at the time. I felt like, perhaps, real progress had been made. Perhaps the self-professed "party of inclusion" had finally made an effort to include atheists like me. After all, Obama was the first president to mention "non-believers" in his Inaugural Address. That freezing January day on the National Mall, I was there, and I felt hope. For the first time, I really felt included. This was not to be, however. It was reported that President Obama himself was outraged at the exclusion of God in the party platform and personally—and firmly—requested that it be included. Including the term "God" in the party platform is not just an affront to me—or to atheists. It is often argued that "God" is a generic term; unlike Jesus, it doesn't denote any specific religion. Rather, it is argued, God is a stand in for a kind of civic religion, an American spirituality. In short, however, it is a belief in some sort of "higher power", some sort of vague "spirituality". Even if we were to accept this idea, there are plenty of religious people who don't believe in the concept of one god, or even the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God referred to in speech after speech by speakers at the DNC, and certainly the one referred to in the revised platform. Sure, this concept of a monotheistic God more or less covers the big three: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The concept of this specific God does, however, leave atheists, agnostics, secularists, polytheists, and others, out in the cold.
At the opening of the Convention on Day 2 (or Wednesday, September 5th), some top Democrats seemed to have changed their minds about the content of their party's platform. Perhaps they bowed to pressure (especially by Fox News, who, I'm sure, sought to discredit Democrats in any way they could), or they suddenly became alerted to their now-unacceptable omissions. Whatever the case, a voice vote was held. Former governor of Ohio and head of the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, Ted Strickland, was introduced on stage by the Democratic National Committee Chairman (and current governor of Los Angeles) Antonio Villaraigosa. After Strickland talked about how he was an ordained minister and God's very important to him and to the "American narrative" and how Jerusalem is, of course, the capital of Israel (though he didn't mention anything about Israelis, Palestinians, or any reason that such a statement should be so important), Villaraigosa put the platform changes up to a vote from those in the audience. After the first vote, the "nays" seemed equal to the "yeas". Villaraigosa tried again. The same thing happened, this time with the "nays" being shouted even louder. After hesitation and momentary panic—and after a woman on the side of the stage who we can only assume was another Party official said, "I think we're just gonna have to let them do what they wanna do"—Villaraigosa tried one last time—with (surprise, surprise!) the same result. He then decided that, in his opinion, "two-thirds of the crowd voted in the affirmative", and the changes were adopted. After this, very audible booing occurred from the audience. This, of course, was ignored, and what was done was done. Music was played in an attempt to drown out the prolonged booing from the audience, and the next speaker was rushed out in an effort to make a seamless transition into the rest of the Convention.
What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States? Many things, each party would have you believe, chief among them, each party's differing views on how to move the country forward. This basically amounts to ideological differences in the role, scope, and aims of the federal government, led by either the overwhelming guiding principle of self reliance (Republicans) or the communitarian "we're stronger together and all help one another" spirit of cooperation (Democrats). But, of course, we are all Americans, and each party will say that we are all united by basic American principles. These principles include that nebulous, but all important concept of "freedom" and that we are united by the shared belief and understanding of inalienable truths–one of those being the near sycophantic undying support for Israel. And, oh, by the way, if you even dare question Israel's motives or say one critical word about Romney BFF "Bibi" Netanyahu, then you are anti-semitic (never mind the fact that the Semites include Palestinians as well as the Jews of the region), and are dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust. You will be cast out into the political hinterlands like one Jimmy Carter, never mind the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, but so did another US president, Barack Obama. So many similarities! No wonder our poor president felt such pressure to cave. The Republicans might try to weaken him. …Except that Republicans have already questioned Obama's commitment to Israel (in detestable terms), and will continue to do so. The Romney campaign has blatantly told the public it's not above lying (the famous phrase by Romney's campaign that it "will not be beholden to fact checkers"), and campaign operatives know that vitriolic rhetoric plays well with racist, ignorant members of the Republican base.
Obama wanted control of the message. Perhaps this will all blow over in the next few days, overcome by a tsunami of enthusiasm following the president's acceptance speech tonight. I'm sure the Obama campaign staff and the DNC inner circle are betting on the fact that this unfortunate incident will be forgotten as Democrats indulge in the inspiring, empowering speeches of Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Julian Castro, Ted Strickland…except that Ted Strickland was the person who came out on stage, claiming his history as an ordained Methodist minister and pressing for changes to the Democratic platform. He is the face that stared at the panicked Antonio Villaraigosa as Villaraigosa asked the DNC delegation three times if it would accept the changes to the platform. When he confirmed changes, boos rang out. The admiration and affinity I had acquired for Ted Strickland, after hearing his fantastic speech the night before, had evaporated in less than 24 hours. It was replaced by feelings of anger and betrayal. I wonder if this is what Tea Partiers feel like when they claim tyranny of the government. I waited to write this until I had time to let events settle in, and I can't see it as anything but tyranny. I know I sound hyperbolic, but how else would these actions be explained?
Religion should be separate from politics, and the United States should not be as involved in Israeli policy. What happened to "freedom" (of thought, dissent, and self determination)?
Everyone is entitled to his or her views. THAT is precisely the point I'm trying to make. The part about God and the part about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel were not originally in the Democratic platform. While I believe these things should have no place in the platform, it's not up to me–or Strickland or Villaraigosa or Obama–hence, the vote.
These people, who seemed to amass more than one-third of the audience so much so that Villaraigosa asked three times, freaked out, and rammed it through, amidst very audible boos, had a right to be heard, and to be taken seriously. People are right to feel outraged and betrayed.
It is a party convention. The platform must be affirmed and adopted by those delegates in attendance. In this case, a two-thirds majority was necessary, and that number didn't seem to approve of these proposals being added.
The adoption of the changes to the platform was pre-scripted and passed despite a great amount of obvious objection. Those who take issue with the platform changes, and the way in which they were adopted have no recourse for complaint. These people, the delegates, are representatives of American citizens, and are our frontline of so-called democracy. They are the representatives of our "representative republic". If their voices are silenced or ignored, what other conclusion is there to draw than the fact that the people don't matter to the party, that the many at the bottom matter little to those at the top? The voice of the people was overridden. It never mattered in the first place.
This is all the more ironic since the Democratic Party points to the undemocratic practices of its counterpart the Republican Party in silencing people by making it increasingly difficult for them to vote. For all of the talk of people-powered change and the progressivism of the Democratic Party during the convention, when the extension of such ideals was exercised, it meant nothing.
I'm more than disappointed. I'm angry, and I feel disillusioned and betrayed. I feel stung by a party that wants my vote, by a party that will appeal to me as a woman, as a young person, as a 99 percenter, as any number of labels, but that takes away from me the definition of the most fundamental identity of all—that of an American.